The case involves a dispute between Elaziğspor Kulübü Derneği (a Turkish football club) and Franco Cángele (an Argentinean football player), with FIFA as the second respondent, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the termination of an employment contract between the club and the player, with the player claiming just cause due to unpaid salaries and bonuses. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay outstanding remuneration of USD 115,000, compensation of USD 50,000, and imposing a two-registration-period ban on new player signings due to the club's repeated contractual breaches. The club appealed this decision to CAS, challenging the legality of the sporting sanctions but not contesting the financial penalties.
The employment contract, signed in January 2014, stipulated monthly salaries, match bonuses, and additional payments for appearances. The player terminated the contract in April 2015, alleging non-payment of salaries, and filed a claim with FIFA DRC. The club failed to respond to FIFA's summons, resulting in a default decision favoring the player. During the CAS appeal, the club introduced new evidence, including bank transfers allegedly showing payments to the player and minutes of a board meeting fining the player for indiscipline. The CAS panel admitted this evidence, noting its relevance despite FIFA's objections, and emphasized that parties should not be penalized for failing to respond at the first instance if they genuinely seek to defend themselves later.
The CAS panel found that the new evidence demonstrated the player had been overpaid, receiving USD 278,250 by the termination date, which exceeded both the contractual credit and the unpaid salaries cited by FIFA. Consequently, the panel concluded the player lacked just cause to terminate the contract, as no salaries were outstanding at the time. The panel upheld the club's appeal, setting aside the FIFA DRC's decision and lifting the sporting sanctions, as the club was found not to have breached the contract. The ruling highlighted the importance of evidence in contractual disputes and the consequences of failing to present a timely defense in initial proceedings. The case underscores the balance between enforcing contractual obligations and ensuring procedural fairness in sports arbitration.